> Pornhub deleted videos that were unverified because a number of them involved children and victims of human trafficking and abuse.

Indeed, but they through the baby out with the bathwater on that one. A tiny percentage of the content they deleted met that criteria.

So? Your original comment still say hit piece when it was in no way that and you seem to acknowledge that in the follow up.

Because it was a hit piece. A victim's advocates group pulled a stunt called "TraffickingHub" -- a gross, gross overstatement of the problem just by looking at the name -- and the NYT covered it because they love to report on that stuff. The problem was overblown in every possible angle, and PH moved to cover their ass.

An article is a hit piece if it lies or distorts the truth. Can you point out where the New York Times did this for this article?

They lost all of that content because they were not moderating their uploads to begin with. Whatever valuable content that was lost, if any, was purely because of their failure to police their own site.

It was better when they didn't police it. There are other ways to censor trafficking content.

Like what?